DVDizzy Forum

This is not entirely about WDW, but about Florida park regulation in general. However, Disney is mentioned and it does relate directly to the way parks may be run in the future...
--------------------------------------------------------

Ride regulation debate takes shape in Florida

http://www.thrillnetwork.com/stories_view.php/1307

Nov. 30th, 2005 -- Current policy in Florida is that the state regulates carnival rides while allowing the bigger amusement parks to regulate themselves. However, after 63 illnesses, injuries, or deaths on rides at the state's parks in the past four years, some are pushing for the state government to take a more active role in ride regulation.

Florida requires large parks to inspect their own rides and report annually on their safety, although some people feel that's not enough. Kathy Fackler, an activist for ride regulation since her son was injured at Disneyland in 1998, says Florida ought to follow California's example and have the state inspect rides. Others who agree with her says state regulation is more assuring to people.

Not all agree with Fackler and her supporters. Proponents of the current system say government regulation would create an unnecessary bureaucracy and lower safety standards. Many also point to the fact that most accidents on rides are a result of rider error.

Loomis wrote: Kathy Fackler, an activist for ride regulation since her son was injured at Disneyland in 1998, says Florida ought to follow California's example and have the state inspect rides.

Yeah I heard all those accidents at Disneyland were due to Paul Pressler's poor design for the attractions in 1994! Now that he is long gone though, Disneyland is back better than ever!

As for Florida, it's as safe as theme parks get! The only ride that is REALLY giving people complaints is "Mission: Space", which due to the strong G-Forces. However all the other rides have not had any serious accidents recently, so I don't see why this isn't "enough" for guests!

The California Supreme Court decision that is behind all of this is ridiculous. The original case had a family of a young woman had died after riding the Indiana Jones ride in Disneyland suing Disney, claiming that the ride had caused her fatal brain trauma. The CSC decision didn't rule that Disney was responsible, but only that the suit could continue on those grounds (I don't think it's been resolved yet).

In making that decision, they ruled that theme park attractions are "common carriers of the public," in the same way that buses are. Disney's lawyers argued that two important factors distinguish theme park attractions from common carriers like buses: (a) people aren't being carried from one place to another and (b) people willingly board these attractions in the pursuit of thrills and NOT in the pursuit of transportation. Essentially, they are neither common nor carriers. That seems like an entirely logical argument to me, but the CSC doesn't seem to think so. I certainly hope that this doesn't extend to Disney World in Florida and that Imagineering doesn't suffer in either theme park.

-Aaron

AwallaceUNC wrote:In making that decision, they ruled that theme park attractions are "common carriers of the public," in the same way that buses are. [...]That seems like an entirely logical argument to me, but the CSC doesn't seem to think so. I certainly hope that this doesn't extend to Disney World in Florida and that Imagineering doesn't suffer in either theme park.

Thanks for that, Aaron. As you know, I have studied a bit of law in my time, and found your summary a useful one. It prompted me to have a look at this CSC decision, as I am curious to see how torts were applied in California.

From what I have read, it seems that the complaint alleged that Moreno's (the person in question) injury was "similar to what happens in 'shaken-baby syndrome.'" Its theory was that the ride either caused, or exacerbated, Moreno's hemorrhage. We have a similar principle here called the "egg shell skull" principle. Basically, it means that you should take the person as you find them. If that person has a weak skull - for example - then even the slightest of mishaps that results in serious harm (even if it would not have resulted in serious harm to another person) will be deemed negligent. This, of course, would really only apply (as far as I can tell) if Disney's ride was in some way defective.

Getting back to that particular case though, it seems as though there is considerable law to suggest that the Disneyland jeeps should NOT be seen as a "common carrier". As Aaron suggested, the very function of the ride is to act in the complete opposite way to a real-world ride. It is intended to thrill, not act as a means of transport. This would appear to be the dissenting (minority) view of the CSC as well, who suggested that the higher standard applied to common carriers was never meant to extend to amusement park rides.

An excellent summary can be found here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050627.html

As it suggests towards the end, where do we draw the line between a safe and high-standard and the fun element?

I can see advantages to both self-regulation and government imposed regulation. On the one hand, self-regulation has worked for the most part. Disney - and all of the other parks - have an interest in keeping their guests safe and happy, because they rely on their tourist dollars. On the other hand, the state functions to keep its citizens safe, and the checks and balances a government provide should not stop short of corporate interests.

Disney has had 50 years experience in the theme park business, and there have only been a handful of fatalities in that time. 90% of these have been the result of guest stupidity. At some point the government has to set a broad regulation and trust that those with experience will carry it out to the best of their expertise.

The only problem I can foresee with self-regulation is that the smaller companies who may want to set up shop in Florida - those with less experience and money than Disney - may not have the resources to adequately self-regulate in the way that a major multi-media corporation can.

I won't start a whole new thread, because this seems appropriate here.

Settlement ends lawsuit in Disneyland Thunder Mountain death

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 313703.htm

"Disney said Friday it accepts responsibility for incorrectly performing maintenance on the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad ride. An axle assemble came loose on the ride on Sept. 5, 2003, causing the first passenger car to jackknife and slam into the lead car, which is shaped to resemble a locomotive.

The accident caused the death of Marcelo Torres of Gardena, who suffered severe blunt force trauma and extensive internal bleeding."

Lucylover1986 wrote:Yahoo! News

Yeah - that's pretty much the same story as the one I posted above. Lots of coverage actually.

The real question is how it is going to impact future suits against Disney. They seem to have settled all of these, and accepted responsibility.

Does anyone think that this will alter the way Disney markets/makes rides?

Sorry someone just moved it there. I didn't even look at this thread.

Lucylover1986 wrote:Sorry someone just moved it there. I didn't even look at this thread.

My bad. I've altered my above thing now anyway, so future generations will be baffled by both of our comments from this point on

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Yeah I heard all those accidents at Disneyland were due to Paul Pressler's poor design for the attractions in 1994! Now that he is long gone though, Disneyland is back better than ever!

As for Florida, it's as safe as theme parks get! The only ride that is REALLY giving people complaints is "Mission: Space", which due to the strong G-Forces. However all the other rides have not had any serious accidents recently, so I don't see why this isn't "enough" for guests!

I know, Disneyland is one of the first Disney theme parks that sometimes had injuries and deaths on some rides. This is like Coney Island in Brooklyn where they lots of injuries and deaths right before Coney Island went to a remodeling bit. Coney Island was first opened back in the 1920's long before Disneyland opened in 1955.